Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Surat V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. - 4, Surat

CO 11/SRT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals and cross objections related to the assessment years 2017-18, 2019-20, and 2020-21, concerning the assessee, Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, and the Revenue. The primary issues revolved around the validity of unsigned assessment orders, the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained investments in land and gifts, and the applicability of sections 143(3), 153A, and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the procedural and substantive aspects of the assessments, including the handling of incriminating documents and the legal interpretations of the relevant sections of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 301787 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Chintan Jadavbhai Patel vs. ITO, Rejeev Tractors P. Ltd vs. ACIT, CIT vs. Ved Prakash Chaudhary, COMMON CAUSE vs. UNION OF INDIA, NISHANT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, Vallamji R. Patel vs. ITO, Chetanbhai Prahaldbhai Gami vs. ITO, Late Shri Mohanlal Ambelal Desai vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Rectification of order; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Valuation report; Validity of assessment; Accommodation entries
• Section: 147; 148; 132; 271(1)(c); 154; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 133(6); 143(1); 150(1); 143(2); 139(1); 43; 48; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.142/SRT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABQPK8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और जÞती) सं./IT(SS)A Nos.32/SRT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABQPK8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और जÞती) सं./IT(SS)A Nos.65 to 67/SRT/2023 (AYs: 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21) The DCIT, Central Circle-4, Surat. Vs. Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABQPK8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) ĤǓत आपƣी सं./Cross Objection Nos.11 & 12/SRT/2023 (Arising in IT(SS)A Nos.65 & 67/SRT/2023) (AYs: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-4, Surat. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABQPK8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) Page | 2 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan Appellant by Shri Ramesh Malpani, CA Respondent by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 13/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 11/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: This is the bunch of seven appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue and Cross Objections filed by Assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2020-21, all are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A/154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Since, the issues involved in all these appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. First, we shall take Revenue’s appeal and Assessee’s appeals for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. For assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has filed two appeals viz: in IT(SS)A No.32/SRT/2023, which is against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.09.2021 and the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.142/SRT/2023, for A.Y.2017-18, is against the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act, dated 09.10.2021. The Revenue has filed the appeal in IT(SS) No.65/SRT/2023 for Page | 3 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan A.Y.2017-18, against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, dated 30.09.2021. Therefore, assessee`s appeal in IT(SS)A No.32/SRT/2023 and Revenue`s appeal in IT(SS) No.65/SRT/2023, both for assessment year 2017-18, are cross appeals for assessment year 2017-18. However, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 142/SRT/2023, for A.Y.2017-18, is against the rectification order passed by the assessing officer under section 154 of the Act. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, for Assessment Year 2017-18, contain multiple ground of appeals. However, at the time of hearing we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Assessee and Revenue. We find that most of the grounds raised by the Assessee and Revenue, are either academic in nature or contentious in nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of the Assessee and Revenue. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Assessee and Revenue, as follows: (1) In IT(SS)A No. 65/SRT/2023, Revenue`s appeal, for AY.2017- 18, the grounds of appeal are as follows: (i) Ground No.1 & 2: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.3,61,00,000/- to Rs.12,62,500/- in respect of land at Umarwada, despite the fact that the addition was made by Assessing Officer based on incriminating documents and during the assessment proceedings the assessee had not raised the plea regarding the MoU was not executed. (ii) Ground No.3: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the addition of Rs.3,61,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards investments in land at Umarwada to Rs.1,01,00,000/- and thereafter confirming only the amount of Rs.12,62,500/- in the hands of the assessee without giving specific direction u/s 150(1) of the Act in respect of the remaining amount Page | 4 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan of Rs.88,37,500/- to be added in the case of other partners, in their profit sharing ratio.” (2) In IT(SS)A No.32/SRT/2023, Assessee`s appeal, for AY.2017- 18, the grounds of appeal are as follows: (i).Ground No.1: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the unsigned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the impugned unsigned assessment order has been passed and served on the assessee on 16.10.2021 by changing the figure of assessed income at Rs.3,85,77,900/-, as against, originally assessed income of Rs.24,77,900/-, as per computation sheet and demand notice uploaded on 30.09.2021 and is therefore, clearly wrong, invalid and time barred. (ii)Ground No.2: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition to the tune of Rs.12,62,500/- on the basis of unsigned and irrelevant paper.” (3) In ITA No.142/SRT/2023 for AY.2017-18, Assessee`s appeal, for AY.2017-18, the grounds of appeal are as follows: “Ground No.1: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of rectification order passed by Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. To adjudicate the above appeals of the Assessee and Revenue, for AY.2017-18, we shall take lead case in IT(SS)A No.65/SRT/2023. 6. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee, before us, is an individual deriving income from House Property, Business and Profession, and Other Sources. The assessee filed original return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18, on 29.12.2017, declaring total income of Rs.24,77,900/-. This return of income was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In assessee`s case no assessment was completed earlier. Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the Kuberji Group and the business and residential premises of Shri Rajendra Prasad Babulal Khetan was also covered in the search. At the time of search, Page | 5 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan various documents of incriminating nature, was found and seized which indicates that the assessee has not offered true and correct income in the return filed by him. Consequent upon the completion of search proceedings, a notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated 26.02.2021 was issued to the assessee, requesting him to furnish a return of income, within the time allowed as per the notice. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the return of income on 08.03.2021, declaring total income of Rs.24,77,900/-. On receipt of return of income, in response to the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, dated 17.03.2021 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire was issued through ITBA system which was duly served upon the assessee. By this notice, the assessee was requested to furnish the details as per the requirement of the questionnaire. In response to the above notices/questionnaire, the assessee has furnished his reply through e-proceeding. 7. During the course of search, at the residence of Shri Sunny J. Patel and Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel, at 240, Lal Kila, Near Police Chowky, Tekrafaliyu, Punagam, Surat, some digital devices were found and backup of the same were taken. On verification of such sanned images, one image reflected satakhat dated 09.09.2016, wherein details of purchases of lands bearing Block no. 786, 787 and 789 of village Punagam was found form whatsapp chat of Shri Sunny J. Patel and Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel (Camera roll: IMG_4971). The above satakhat was between Shri R. D. Palitana (seller) and Shri Rajendra Badrinarayan Chankad & Jayantibhai B. Patel (Purchasers). The satakhat is signed by both the parties on 09.09.2016 in the Page | 6 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan presence of witnesses Shri Milan B. Vasani and Shri Ramesh Pithwadi. The said satakhat reflects that the land bearing block no.786, 787 and 789 of village Puna admeasuring about 17785 sq. yards agreed to be sold and purchased for Rs.61,551/- per sq. yard. The total area of each land at block no.786, 787 and 789 of village Puna was verified from the website of Gujarat government, any ROR from which it is gathered that her land at block no.786, Puna, has been sold for a total consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000/- whereas as per the saudachitthi found, total consideration of the said land is Rs.23,08,16,250/- which is as under: Sr. no. Block no. Sq. Mtr. Sq. Yard Rate Amount 1. 786 3136 3750 61551 23,08,16,250 8. Therefore, assessing officer observed that an amount of Rs.20,08,16,250/- has been invested in cash for the said land block no. 786 by the purchasers. Shri Rajendra chandak and Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel are the sellers and Shri Vinod Goswami, Vishal N. Jalan and Rakesh Khetan are the purchasers. The on-money invested by Shri Vinod Goswami, Shri Vishal N Jalan and Shri Rakesh Khetan are Rs.8,03,26,500/-, Rs.3,01,22,438/- and Rs.9,03,67,313 respectively. The assessee has requested to explain the said transaction towards unaccounted investment made with documentary evidences as appearing in books of accounts. 9. In response, the assessee has replied as follows: “1. In respect of digital image stated to be scanned from mobile phone of Shri Sunny J. Patel and Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel and pasted on Page No. 3 of above referred notice, I humbly beg to submit that the said digital image and contents therein are totally irrelevant for me and in my case. As has been mentioned by your honour in your above referred notice, this seems to be some understanding between some Shri R. D. Palitna (seller) and Shri Rajendra B. Chandak & Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel (Purchasers). This jointing appears to be jotted on 09.09.2016 between above persons. I Page | 7 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan have no concern or relevance with this message and contents therein. Neither the same pertains to me nor the same mentions my name or anything about me nor my signature is there on the same. This jotting is in or anything about me nor my signature is there on the same. This jotting is in Gujarati language and I do not know writing in Gujarati. I am totally unaware about the contents of this message, which is totally irrelevant for me and my case. 2. As far as the land at block no.786, Final Plot No.98, Village puna, Taluka: Puna, Dist: Surat, Purchased by my son Shri Rakesh Khetan along with Shri Vinod Goswami and Shri Vishal Jalan is concerned, we humbly beg to submit that land was purchased from Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai Radadia and his family members (total 10 joint owners as mentioned in sale deed) and not from Shri Rajendra Chandk and Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel as has been incorrectly assumed in your above referred notice. We attach herewith following documents:- 1. Registered Sale Deed in respect of the above land purchased by us. 1. Village Form No. '6' downloaded from the website of Gujarat Government (any ror) about our purchases of this land.” From above statutory documents, following facts are clearly evident-  Owners of the land so purchased by my son were Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai Radadia and his family members (total 10 joint owners) as mentioned in sale deed as well as village form no. 6. This fact is also evident from village Form no. ‘7’ annexed as page no. 17 of the registered sale deed. Shri Rajendra Chandk, Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel or Shri R. D. Palitna were not the owners of this land. They are totally irrelevant persons in respect of the land purchased by us.  My son Shri Rakesh Khetan along with Shri Vinod Goswami and Shri Vishal Jalan have purchased this land from Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai Radadia and his family members (total 10 joint owners as mentioned in sale deed) and not from Shri Rajendra Chandk and Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel as has been incorrectly assumed in your above referred notice.  They have purchased this land in FY.2020-21 for which payments have been made in FY.2020-21 and sale deed was executed and registered on 22.02.2021. Mutation entry in the revenue records (Village Frorm No.”6”) was certified on 09.06.2021. Earlier, we had nothing to do with this land. Thus, this land was not purchased by them in the year under assessment nor the same was purchased from the persons mentioned in your notice. We were totally unaware about his land in the year under assessment and did not have any concern with this land in the year under assessment. We purchased the same in F.Y.2020-21 as per details and terms and conditions mentioned in the said deed Page | 8 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan  Final plot area of the land purchased by my son and joint owners is 2195 sq. mrs. They have purchased this land at fair market value and made the payments of entire amount of sales consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- to the sellers Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai Radadia and his family members (total 10 joint owners as mentioned in sale deed) through banking channel as per details mentioned in the sale deed. The payments so made for purchase of this land have been duly accounted for in books of accounts my son. There has been no payment in cash.Thus, neither this land was purchased by us in the year under assessment, nor the same was purchased from the persons mentioned in your notice nor any cash or unaccounted money has been paid by us for purchase of this land. Assumptions made in your notice about our purchase of the land are, thus, clearly incorrect, and nonexistent. As regards to the digital image pasted by your honour on page no. 3 of your notice, we humbly beg to submit that this is totally irrelevant so far as the land purchased by us is concerned. It appears to be for some other land of matter as none of the persons named in this digital image had any connection or relevance with the land purchased by my son Shri Rakesh Khetan along with Shri Vinod Goswami and Shri Vishal Jalan. Hence, this digital image is totally irrelevant for our case.” 10. However, assessing officer noted that during the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri Shankarlal Nebhumal Uttacmchandani, Loose paper from page no.1 to 150 were found, seized inventorized in Annexure –A-4. Page no.75 to 79 of Annexure- A-4 is regarding with MoU dated 02.05.2016, regarding property situated at Plot No.141, T.P No. 8, F.P. No.54, Umarwada, Surat. First party (lease taker of the property) are partners of firm Ketan Textile i.e. NareshkumarVishveshwarlal Agarwal and Rajendra Prasad Babulal Khaitan. Second party (lease giver of the property) are Devendrabhai Mulchanddas Jariwala and Prahladbhai Mulchanddas Jariwala, as per this MOU consideration for the said transaction agreed upon is Rs.3,61,00,000/-. The payment conditions mentioned in the MOU are as under: Rs.51,00,000/- paid on 02.05.2016, Rs.50,00,000/- will be paid by 05.05.2016, Rs.2,60,00,000/- will be paid after order/documentation. Page | 9 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan Therefore, assessing officer noted that at page No.76 of the Annexure- A-4, there is mention of cash receipts out of above mentioned amount and the receiver of the cash as a token of receipt has also signed it. The details of such cash payments are as under: Date 02.05.2016 - Rs. 50,00,000/- cash received Date 03.05.2016 - Rs. 50,00,000/- cash received Based on these facts, the assessing officer asked the assessee to explain the said transaction towards unaccounted investment made with documentary evidences as appearing in the books of accounts. 11. In response, the assessee submitted written submission before the assessing officer, which is reproduced below: “With reference to above, I humbly beg to submit that I had not received copy of the MOU (Page No.75 to 79 of Annexure A-4 stated to be seized from residence of Shri Shankarlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani) as mentioned in above referred notice. In the absence of copy of same and statement/explanation of Shri Shankarlal Uttamchandani in respect of the same, I am not in position to give exact reply. In the meanwhile, I humbly beg to submit that I had no knowledge about entering any MoU with Shri Devendrabhai Mulchanddas Jariwala and Prahladbhai Mulachanddas Jariwala and making any such cash payments to them. I, therefore, request your honour to kindly provide me copy of these seized papers (MOU) as mentioned in the notice and statement/explanation of Shri Shankarlal Uttamchandani in respect of the same, so that I can file proper reply in this regard.” 12. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that assessee did not give any substantial evidence in respect of the contention taken by them, nor could prove that the said deal did not materialize in form of satakhat or other documents, therefore an addition of Rs.3,61,00,000/- was made by the assessing officer. Page | 10 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan 13. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition. The ld CIT(A) observed that assessing officer has not been also able to bring on record whether the transaction of lease as per the MOU was actually executed. Hence, the unpaid amount as shown in the MOU cannot be brought to tax either in the hands of M/s Ketan Textiles or its partners. However, ld CIT(A) also noted that there is evidence in the receipts enclosed with the MOU that the amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/- in cash was paid to the owners in two installments of Rs.51,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- on 02.05.2016 and 03.05.2016 respectively. The assessee has not been able to produce any evidence that such amount of cash was available in the books of M/s Ketan Textiles. The assessee filed a letter on 03.01.2023 with enclosure (being a photocopy) stating that the source of Rs.1,01,00,000/- was cash available with M/s Shree Kuberji Developers which was paid as advance and was received back on 07.05.2016, as transaction did not materialize. This seems to be afterthought because the transaction was to take place in M/s Ketan Textiles, in such case how can the cash available with some other firm with different partners can be the source of the said cash? This contention of the assessee was rejected by CIT(A). In such a circumstance, the cash in question shall be deemed to have been paid by the partners of M/s Ketan Textiles. The assessee was the partner of said firm having share of 12.5% (others being Mr. Naresh Agarwal (37.5%), Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani (37.5%) and Mr. Rajesh Poddar (12.5%)). Hence, in absence of any details that this amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/-was sourced from M/s Ketan Textiles, it has to be held that it was paid by the partners in the profit sharing ratio of 37.5: Page | 11 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan 37.5:12.5 :12.5 between Mr. Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani, Mr. Rajesh Poddar and the assessee respectively. Accordingly, out of the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.3,61,00,000/-, the addition to the tune of Rs.12,62,500/- (12.5% of Rs.1,01,00,000) was sustained in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee partly. 14. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue, as well as Assessee, both are in appeal before us. 15. Learned DR for the revenue argued that the documents and papers found at the residence of assessee during the search proceedings prove beyond doubt that the assessee had major role in the said land transaction. From the details available with assessing officer it is ascertain that the assessee had made huge investment in land in Surat and is partner in many firms related to Kuberji Group. Further, the digital data seized by the search team is as per the Evidence Act, 1872 of I.T. Act, 1961 and as per section 292C of the I.T. Act, there is presumption with regard to content of the seized material. The search u/s 132 of the Act has conducted in the case of assessee and many group concerns/individuals of Kuberji Group. Further, the assessee has not explained the transactions properly, therefore addition made by the assessing officer may be sustained. 16. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue submitted that the DIN Number and the assessment order, computation sheets and the demand notice were in the sequence and these orders were framed by the Assessing Officer on 30.09.2021. The Ld. DR pointed out that by mistake, the figures written in intimation Page | 12 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan under section 143(1) of the Act, has been captured in the computation sheet and therefore the demand notice was based on the returned income and therefore it is a clerical mistake. The assessment order was framed on 30.09.2021 which was delivered to the assessee on 16.10.2021. Therefore, Ld. DR contended that assessment order was framed on or before 30.09.2021, however the delivery of the assessment order is immaterial, therefore assessment order, computation sheet and demand notice were framed by the Assessing Officer within the time limit prescribed under the Act, therefore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A should not be quashed, merely on such technical mistake. 17. The Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that rectification order under section 154 of the Act, may be passed by the assessing officer, suo motu, without informing to the assessee, if there is apparent mistake in the assessment order, therefore rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer is a valid rectification order. 18. On the other hand, Shri Ramesh Malpani, learned Counsel for the assessee argued that addition of Rs.3,61,00,000/- was made by the assessing officer on account of presumptive unaccounted investment on the basis of irrelevant papers seized from third party copy of the same and without providing copy of statement of such third party in respect of those papers. The assessee was not aware about this MOU and assessee had requested the assessing officer to provide copy of the same and also copy of statement of said third party from whose place the same was seized. However, assessing officer, without providing any of these papers, made the addition of whole of amount of Page | 13 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan Rs.3,61,00,000/- in the hands of assessee as unaccounted/ unexplained investment. The ld Counsel submitted that said MOU is not at all relevant in case of assessee. As mentioned by assessing officer, the MOU was between M/s Ketan Textiles and the lease givers. The assessee is an individual, had nothing to do with the same. Even if some investment is made, it is up to the firm M/s Ketan Textiles to explain the same. Merely because the assessee was also a small partner in the firm does not mean that the addition can be made in the hands of assessee. Thus, the so called MoU, is irrelevant document for assessee, as an individual. Besides the said MOU was not found and seized during the course of search and seizure action in the case of assessee but was seized from a third party. Apart from this, addition is also beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act, as the same is not based on any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search and seizure action in the case of assessee. The assessee has not entered into any such transaction with above mentioned parties (lease givers) and has never taken any such property on lease and has not made any such payment /investment. There has been no such finding, at all in the case of assessee. The assessee has been informed by the said party, M/s Ketan Textiles that the above mentioned MOU could not be executed and materialized and no such investment was made by the firm. 19. Thus, on merits of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that entire addition made by Assessing Officer based on the unsigned memorandum of understanding (MoU). Moreover, there was no name of the assessee in the said MoU, therefore just because the MoU was received by the Income Tax Department from a third party Page | 14 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan and said MoU was not signed by the assessee, therefore addition should not have been made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the said MoU has never been executed and there was no receipt of impugned payment of the amount based on the MoU. Therefore, based on the MoU, which was recovered from the third party, which has not been executed and which was not signed by assessee, the addition should not be sustained in the hands of the assessee. For that, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following judgments: (i) Chintan Jadavbhai Patel vs. ITO (2017) 79 taxmann.com 302 (Guj. HC) (ii) Rejeev Tractors P. Ltd vs. ACIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com (Ahmedabad Trib.) (iii) CIT vs. Ved Prakash Chaudhary (2010) 3 taxmann.com 785 (SC) Therefore, based on the above factual position, the ld Counsel contended that ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. 20. Shri Malpani, also argued that addition to the tune of Rs.12,62,500/- (12.5% of Rs.1,01,00,000) was sustained in the hands of the assessee by ld CIT(A). The assessee was the partner of said firm having share of 12.5% [others being Mr. Naresh Agarwal (37.5%), Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani (37.5%) and Mr. Rajesh Poddar (12.5%)]. The ld CIT(A) has sustained the addition of Rs.12,62,500/- (12.5% of Rs.1,01,00,000) in the hand of assessee, because assessee was one of the partners in the firm, however in the hands of other partners, (others being Mr. Naresh Agarwal (37.5%), Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani (37.5%) and Mr. Rajesh Poddar (12.5%), the Department has not made addition. Therefore, assessee should not be treated differently from these three partners. When the Department Page | 15 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan has not made addition in the hands of other partners, then why the assessee should suffer alone. There should be equality in imposing taxation. Therefore, when the said amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/-, has not been taxed in the hands of other partners, the part amount of Rs.12,62,500/- (12.5% of Rs.1,01,00,000) should not be taxable in the hand of assessee. 21. Shri Malpani, further argued that Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the arguments of the assessee on the technical issue. The Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate that assessment order was unsigned by the Assessing Officer, therefore assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is not in accordance with law. If the assessment order is unsigned then it would be deemed that no assessment order was framed by the Assessing Officer, therefore Ld. CIT(A) was erred in upholding the validity of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that the impugned unsigned assessment order has been passed and served upon the assessee on 16.10.2021 by changing the figure of assessed income at Rs.3,85,77,900/- as against originally assessed income of Rs.24,77,900/- as per computation sheets and demand notice uploaded on 30.09.2021 and therefore the assessment order is invalid in the eye of law as it is a time barred assessment order and Ld. CIT(A) should have quashed such assessment order. For that, Ld. Counsel relied on two judgments which are reproduced below: (i) Shanti Lal Godawat vs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ 135 (Jodhpur) (ii) CWT vs. Dhhansukhlal J. Gajjar (1999) 137 ITR 534 (Guj. HC) Page | 16 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan Hence, Ld. Counsel contended that The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the unsigned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the impugned unsigned assessment order has been passed and served on the assessee on 16.10.2021 by changing the figure of assessed income at Rs.3,85,77,900/-, as against, originally assessed income of Rs.24,77,900/-, as per computation sheet and demand notice uploaded on 30.09.2021 and is therefore, clearly wrong, invalid and time barred, hence entire assessment order should be quashed. 22. Shri Malpani, also argued that order passed by the assessing officer should have been rectified and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of rectification order passed by Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rectification order under section 154 of the Act, was passed by the assessing officer, before the impugned unsigned assessment order delivered to the assessee. Normally, the rectification order was passed after framing the assessment order, therefore the rectification order under section 154 of the Act is bad in law because it is before the date of 16.10.2021, which is the date of passing the assessment order, therefore the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer before the assessment order, was illegal. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that while passing the rectification order under section 154 of the Act, the assessee has not been given opportunity of being heard. 23. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the Page | 17 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. Though facts have been discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs, however in the succinct manner, the relevant facts and background are reiterated in order to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. As per the assessing officer, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in Shree Kuberji Group and the business and residential premises of Shri Rajendra Prasad Babulal Khetan were also covered as he is the partner in some of the firms of the Group. During the course of search, various incriminating documents were found and seized. During the course of the search at the residence of Shri Shankarlal Nebhumal Uttmchandani, loose paper page no. 1 to 150 were found and seized and inventoried as Annexute-A-4. The Page no.75 to 79 of the said Annexure-A-4 is regarding MOU dated 02.05.2016, regarding property situated at Plot No. 141, T.P.No.-8, F.P.No.54, Umarwada. In the aforesaid MOU, first party (lease taker of the property) were partners of firm Ketan Textile i.e. Nareshkumar Vishveshwarlal Agarwal and Rajendra Prasad Babulal Khaitan (the assessee). The Second party (lease giver of the property) was Devendrabhai Mulchanddas Jariwala and Prahladbhai Mulchanddas Jariwala. And as per the said MOU consideration for the said transaction agreed upon was Rs.3,61,00,000/-. On Page no.76 of Annexure-A-4, there was mention of cash receipts out of above mentioned amount and the receiver of the cash as a token of receipt has also signed it. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not give any substantial evidence in respect of contention taken by him, nor could prove that the said deal did not materialize in form of satakhat or other Page | 18 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan documents and hence the Assessing Officer has made the addition amounting to Rs.3,61,00,000/- on account of unaccounted investment. 24. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee argued before the ld CIT(A) that during the course of search, various incriminating documents were found and seized. During the course of the search at the residence of Shri Shankarlal Nebhumal Uttmchandani, loose paper page no. 1 to 150 were found and seized and inventoried as Annexute- A-4. Page no.75 to 79 of the said Annexure-A-4 is regarding MoU dated 02.05.2016, regarding property situated at Plot No. 141, T.P.No.-8, F.P.No.54, Umarwada. In the aforesaid MoU, first party (lease taker of the property) were partners of firm Ketan Textile i.e. Nareshkumar Vishveshwarlal Agarwal and Rajendra Prasad Babulal Khaitan (the assessee). The Second party (lease giver of the property) was Devendrabhai Mulchanddas Jariwala and Prahladbhai Mulchanddas Jariwala. And as per the said MoU consideration for the said transaction agreed upon was Rs.3,61,00,000/-. On Page no.76 of Annexure-A-4, there was mention of cash receipts out of above mentioned amount and the receiver of the cash as a token of receipt has also signed it. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not give any substantial evidence in respect of contention taken by him, nor could prove that the said deal did not materialize in form of satakhat or other documents and hence the Assessing Officer has made the addition amounting to Rs.3,61,00,000/- on account of unaccounted investment. The assessee also submitted before ld CIT(A) that said MoU is not at all relevant in case of assessee. As mentioned by assessing officer, the MoU was between M/s Ketan Textiles and the lease givers. The Assessee, as an individual, had nothing to do with the same. Even if some investment is made, it is up Page | 19 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan to the firm M/s Ketan Textiles to explain the same. Merely because the assessee was also a small partner in the firm does not mean that the addition can be made in the hands of assessee. Thus, the so called MoU is irrelevant document for assessee, as an individual. The said MoU was not found and seized during the course of search and seizure action in the case of assessee but was seized from a third party. Assessee specifically requested to assessing officer to provide him copy of the said document and explanation of third party in respect of the same. However, assessing officer did not provide the same to assessee and straight away made the addition of whole of amount in the hands of assessee by assuming the same as unexplained investment. The assessee also submitted that the addition is also beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act, as the same is not based on any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search and seizure action in the case of assessee. The Assessee has not entered into any such transaction with above mentioned parties (lease givers) and has never taken any such property on lease and has not made any such payment /investment. There has been no such finding at all in the case of assessee. The Assessee has been informed by the said M/s Ketan Textiles that the above mentioned MoU could not be executed and materialized and no such investment was made by the firm. 25. After considering the assessee`s submission, the ld CIT(A) observed that the MOU relied by the assessing officer in making this addition i.e. page no. 75 to 79 of Annexure-A-4 is relating to the property at plot no. 141, Umarwada, Surat. In the said MOU, the land in question was to be leased to M/s Ketan Textiles by the Owners Mr Devendrabhai Jariwala and Prahladbhai Jariwala for total Page | 20 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan consideration of Rs.3,61,00,000/-. Out of this amount, Rs.1,01,00,000/- was paid in cash on 02.05.2016 and 03.05.2016 as evident from the signed receipts enclosed with the MoU. This proves that the total amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/- was paid either by the firm M/s Ketan Textiles or by its partners Mr Nareshkumar B. Agarwal, Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani, Mr. Rajesh Poddar and Mr. Rajendraprasad B. Khetan (assessee). The AR of the assessee submitted that the transaction of lease as per MoU did not materialize ultimately due to the problems in the title of the land and hence, the balance amount as per the MoU was never paid and the amount already paid i.e. Rs.1,01,00,000/- was refunded by the owner/sellers of the land. It was further submitted that Mr. Shanker Uttamchandani, in whose premises the said incriminating document was found had submitted before the assessing officer during the course of his assessment proceedings that the said transaction did not materialize. Therefore, there is no evidence in the incriminating material that the balance amount due of Rs.2,60,00,000/- was paid to the owners/sellers of the land. The assessing officer has not been able to prove in assessment proceedings that such a payment which was shown outstanding in the incriminating material was made by M/s Ketan Textiles or its partners. The assessing officer has not been also able to bring on record whether the transaction of lease as per the MoU was actually executed. Hence, ld CIT(A) was of the view, that the unpaid amount as shown in the MoU cannot be brought to tax either in the hands of M/s. Ketan Textiles or its partners. 26. The ld CIT(A) further observed that the transaction of land as per MOU did not materialize but the fact remains that the amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/- as per the incriminating material was paid to the Page | 21 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan owners/sellers of the land either by M/s Ketan Textiles or by its partners. There is evidence in the receipts enclosed with the MOU that the amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/- in cash was paid to the owners in two installments of Rs.51,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- on 02.05.2016 and 03.05.2016 respectively. The assessee has not been able to produce any evidence that such amount of cash was available in the books of M/s Ketan Textiles. The assessee filed a letter on 03.01.2023 with enclosure (being a photocopy) stating that the source of Rs.1,01,00,000/- was cash available with M/s Shree Kuberji Developers which was paid as advance and was received back on 07.05.2016 as transaction did not materialize. This seems to be afterthought because the transaction was to take place in M/s Ketan Textiles, in such case how can the cash available with some other firm with different partners can be the source of the said cash? This contention of the assessee was rejected by ld CIT(A). Therefore, ld CIT(A) noted that the cash in question shall be deemed to have been paid by the partners of M/s Ketan Textiles. The assessee was the partner of said firm having share of 12.5% (others being Mr. Naresh Agarwal (37.5%), Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani (37.5%) and Mr. Rajesh Poddar (12.5%)). Hence, in absence of any details that this amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/-was sourced from M/s Ketan Textiles, it has to be held that it was paid by the partners in the profit sharing ratio of 37.5: 37.5:12.5 :12.5 between Mr. Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani, Mr. Rajesh Poddar and the assessee respectively. Accordingly, out of the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.3,61,00,000/-, the addition to the tune of Rs.12,62,500/- (12.5% of Rs.1,01,00,000) was sustained in the hands of the assessee. Page | 22 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan 27. However, Learned Counsel for the assessee also challenged the addition to the tune of Rs.12,62,500/- (12.5% of Rs.1,01,00,000) sustained in the hands of the assessee by ld CIT(A), stating that such similar additions were not made in the hands of other partners. The assessee was the partner of said firm having share of 12.5% [others being Mr. Naresh Agarwal (37.5%), Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani (37.5%) and Mr. Rajesh Poddar (12.5%)]. The ld CIT(A) has sustained the addition of Rs.12,62,500/- (12.5% of Rs.1,01,00,000) in the hand of assessee, however in the hands of other partners, (others being Mr. Naresh Agarwal (37.5%), Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani (37.5%) and Mr. Rajesh Poddar (12.5%), the Department has not made addition. Therefore, assessee should not be treated differently from these three partners. When the Department has not made addition in the hands of other partners, that is, in the hands of other partners, the said transaction was not taxed in their profit sharing ratio. Therefore, when the said amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/-, has not been taxed in the hands of other partners, the part amount of Rs.12,62,500/- (12.5% of Rs.1,01,00,000) should not be taxable in the hand of assessee, hence the addition of Rs.12,62,500/- sustained by ld CIT(A) should be deleted. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Late Shri Mohanlal Ambelal Desai, I.T.A No.1870/AHD/2015, order dated 07.01.2021, wherein on identical facts, held as follows: “In other alternative submission the AR for the assessee submits that in assessee co-owner’s case the Department has accepted similar Long Term Capital Gain in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The AR of the assessee furnished the copy of assessment order in case of Smt. Prabhodhchandra Ambelal Desai dated 27.09.2013 and in case of Smt. Prabhaben H.Desai in the assessment order dated 27.09.2013 passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. The AR for the assessee submits that being co-owner the assessee is also entitled for similar treatment. The Revenue cannot treat the assessee indifferently. In support of his submission the AR relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Kumar Rani Meenakshi Achi (207) 292 ITR 624 (Mad), Page | 23 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan decision of Ahmedabad Bench in Chetanbhai Prahaldbhai Gami Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2082/Ahd/2013) dated 19.07.2019 and CBDT Circular No.014(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 1. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of Lower Authorities. 2. We have considered the submission of both the parties and gone through the orders of Lower Authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the AR of the assessee. Before us, the AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that in assessee’s co-owner case, the revenue has accepted similar Long Term Capital Gain in the scrutiny assessment. Copy of the assessment order in respect of two co-owners is placed on record. We have noted that no counter to the submission of the assessee, was made by DR that similar Long Term Capital Gain was accepted in case of co-owner. 3. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in ICT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) held that during the same assessment year same quantity of wealth in possession of co-sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co-sharer with a higher rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities is sanctioned it would militate against the principle of equality of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. By following the same principle, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Chetanbhai Prahladbhai Gami vs. ITO in ITA No.2082/AHD/2013 dated 19.07.2019, the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee holding that while making the assessment of the same property the similar treatment should be granted. 4. We have noted that in assessee’s co-owner’s case with respect to the property against the sale of which the assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gain, the AO in assessee’s co-owner case in Prabhodhchandra Ambelal Desai allowed the similar Long Term Capital Gain by passing the following order : “3. On perusal of records and details submitted by the assessee it was found that the assessee was co-owner having share of 6.25% in the property sold for Rs.2,00,00,001/- on 19.01.2009 situated at Survey No.86, Lunsikui, Navsari. Value of property as per stamp duty valuation was determined at Rs.4,09,01,000/-. The assessee has not declared capital gain as he has not filed Return of Income for AY 2009-10. The said property was inherited by the assessee. The assessee has submitted valuation report of the property from Govt. Approved Valuer who has arrived value of property at Rs.66,61,020 as on 01.04.1981. The value of the assessee’s share comes to Rs. 4,16,314. Indexed cost as per section 48 of the Act is worked out at Rs.24,22,947/-. As per stamp duty authority the assessee’s share being 6.25% of sale value in the property comes to Rs.25,56,310/-. Thus capital gain comes to Rs. 1,33,363/-, Page | 24 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan which was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The capital gain of Rs.1,33,363 has now been shown by the assessee in the Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee has not declared suo moto Long Term Capital Gain as he has not filed return of Income. The assessee has consciously not filed return of income to avoid payment of tax. Therefore, Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated on this issue for concealment of income.” 5. We have noted that identical worded assessment order was passed in other co-owner case i.e. Smt. Prabhaben Harshadrai Desai, relevant part of the assessment order is extracted below; “3. On perusal of records and details submitted by the assessee it was found that the assessee was co-owner having share of 6.25% in the property sold for Rs.2,00,00,001/- on 19.01.2009 situated at Survey No.86, Lunsikui, Navsari. Value of property as per stamp duty valuation was determined at Rs.4,09,01,000/-. The assessee has not declared capital gain as he has not filed Return of Income for AY 2009-10. The said property was inherited by the assessee. The assessee has submitted valuation report of the property from Govt. Approved Valuer who has arrived value of property at Rs.66,61,020 as on 01.04.1981. The value of the assessee’s share comes to Rs. 4,16,314. Indexed cost as per section 48 of the Act is worked out at Rs.24,22,947/-. As per stamp duty authority the assessee’s share being 6.25% of sale value in the property comes to Rs.25,56,310/-. Thus capital gain comes to Rs. 1,33,363/-, which was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The capital gain of Rs.1,33,363 has now been shown by the assessee in the Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee has not declared suo moto Long Term Capital Gain as he has not filed return of Income. The assessee has consciously not filed return of income to avoid payment of tax. Therefore, Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated on this issue for concealment of income.” 6. In view of the above aforesaid factual and legal discussion and respectfully following the decision of Madras High Court in Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) and decision of Co-ordinate Bench in Prabhodhchandra Ambelal Desai (supra), the revenue cannot treat the assessee in different way, therefore, the addition to the Long Term Capital Gain added by the AO, confirmed by ld.CIT(A) is deleted. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 28. From the above judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Late Shri Mohanlal Ambelal Desai (supra), it is vivid that being co-owner, the assessee is also entitled for similar treatment. The Page | 25 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan Revenue cannot treat the assessee indifferently. For this reliance can be placed upon the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Kumar Rani Meenakshi Achi (207) 292 ITR 624 (Mad), decision of Ahmedabad Bench in Chetanbhai Prahaldbhai Gami Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2082/Ahd/2013) dated 19.07.2019 and CBDT Circular No.014(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955. It was observed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in ICT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) that during the same assessment year same quantity of wealth in possession of co-sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co-sharer with a higher rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities is sanctioned it would militate against the principle of equality of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. By following the same principle, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Chetanbhai Prahladbhai Gami vs. ITO in ITA No.2082/AHD/2013 dated 19.07.2019, the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee, holding that while making the assessment of the same property the similar treatment should be granted. 29. We note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the other partners` scrutiny assessment were completed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and the proportionate addition for impugned amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/- were not made by the assessing officer. The details of scrutiny assessment are as follows: (i) Hiren Shankerbhai Uttamchandani (37.5%), the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was completed on 24.03.2022. Page | 26 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan (ii) Rajesh Poddar (12.5%), the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was completed on 29.03.2022. (iii) Nareshkumar Bisweshwarlal Agarwal (37.5%), the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was completed on 30.03.2022. 30. We have gone through the scrutiny assessments completed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and we note that the proportionate addition for impugned amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/- were not made by the assessing officer, in respect of above partners. The assessee, being co-owner, is also entitled for similar treatment. Hence respectfully following the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, in the case of Late Shri Mohanlal Ambelal Desai,(supra), we delete the addition of Rs.12,62,500/- sustained by ld CIT(A). 31. In the result, Revenue`s appeal in ITA 65/SRT/2023, for A.Y. 2017-18, is dismissed. 32. In IT(SS)A No.32/SRT/2023, for AY.2017-18, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: (i).Ground No.1: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the unsigned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the impugned unsigned assessment order has been passed and served on the assessee on 16.10.2021 by changing the figure of assessed income at Rs.3,85,77,900/-, as against, originally assessed income of Rs.24,77,900/-, as per computation sheet and demand notice uploaded on 30.09.2021 and is therefore, clearly wrong, invalid and time barred. (ii)Ground No.2: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition to the tune of Rs.12,62,500/- on the basis of unsigned and irrelevant paper.” Page | 27 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan 33. Since we have deleted the entire addition made by the assessing officer and partly sustained by ld CIT(A) ( vide para 26 to 29 of this order), therefore we do not adjudicate, technical ground No.(i), above raised by the assessee in appeal in IT(SS)A No.32/SRT/2023, as we have deleted the entire addition, therefore it renders infructuous. 34. However, ground No. (ii) above, raised by the assessee, on merit, about addition to the tune of Rs.12,62,500/-, in appeal in IT(SS)A No.32/SRT/2023, is allowed, as we have deleted the said addition while adjudicating the revenue`s appeal (vide para 29 of this order). 35. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.32/SRT/2023, is partly allowed in above terms. 36. Now coming to the assessee`s appeal in ITA No.142/SRT/2023 for AY.2017-18, wherein the grounds of appeal are as follows: “Ground No.1: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of rectification order passed by Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 37. Since we have dismissed the revenue`s appeal and deleted the addition sustained by ld CIT(A), therefore adjudication of assessee`s appeal in ITA No.142/SRT/2023 for AY.2017-18, does not require, as it becomes infructuous. 38. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No.142/SRT/2023 for AY.2017-18, is dismissed. 39. Now, we shall take Revenue’s appeal for assessment year (AY).2019-2020 and the cross objection raised by the assessee in Page | 28 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan AY.2019-2020. The summarized grounds of appeal of Revenue and the summarized grounds of cross objections are reproduced below: (1)Assessment Year 2019-20, IT(SS)A No.66/SRT/2023,Rajendraparasd Babulal, (Revenue appeal): (i) Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue relates to deleting the addition of Rs.2,10,62,281/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue states that addition was made based on incriminating details. In real estate market to evade the taxation, the transactions are made on plain paper without registration of sale deed. The ld. CIT(A) granted relief dehorse provisions of section 292C of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) was also erred in deleting the addition ignoring the principles of “Human Probability test” that is, preponderance of probabilities which is applicable for income tax proceedings. (ii) Ground No.5: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.60,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained gift. (Similar ground no.5 in AY.2020-21 raised by the Revenue). (2)Assessee’s CO No.11/SRT/2023, for AY.2019-20: (i) The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the unsigned assessment order passed by Assessing Officer, which was served on the assessee on 16.10.2021 by changing the figure of assessed income at Rs.3,07,81,040/- as originally assessed income of Rs.36,88,360/- as per computation sheet and demand notice uploaded on 30.09.2021, therefore, assessment order is invalid and time barred, hence, such order may be quashed.” 40. Now, we shall take Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 66/SRT/2023, for A.Y. 2019-2020. Succinct facts qua the issue are that ground raised by the Revenue relate to the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.2,10,62,281/-on the basis of loose papers found and seized from the third person. According to the assessing officer, during the course of search in the premises of Mr. Jayantibhai Patel at 240, Lal Quila, Punagam, Surat on 06.02.2020, certain loose papers bearing No.71 and 86 of Annexure A-23 were found and seized. The said page has been reproduced by the assessing officer on page No.3 of the assessment order. The contention of the assessing officer is that the figures mentioned on the page is the payments made by Mr. Page | 29 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan Jayantibhai Patel, Vinod Goswami and the assessee, page No.71 which are the total transactions worth Rs.4,17,24,562/-, the second part is also written in coded form which comes to Rs.4,17,91,500/- and third part is again details of payment made for purchase of immovable property and share in the property. There are some figures on top of page No.86 of Annexure A-23, which match with the figures written on page No.71. The assessing officer, on page No.5 of the assessment order, has concluded that page No.71 of Annexure A-23, is the immovable property purchased after making a payment of Rs.10,98,90,000/-, in which 30% of the value of the property was paid by Mr. Sunny J Patel and 70% was paid by Mr. Vinod Goswami and the assessee. Thus, the assessing officer has worked out the share of the assessee in the transaction at Rs.3,84,61,500/- being 50% of Rs.7,69,23,000/- (which is 70% of Rs. 10,98,90,000/-). Further, the assessing officer held that out of Rs.3,84,61,500/- being the share of the assessee in the property, the cash payment being the on money made by the assessee, as per the working is Rs.2,10,62,281/- (being 50% of Rs.4,21,24,562/- as per page No.71 of Annexure A-23). Thus, the assessing officer made the addition of Rs.2,10,62,281/- as unexplained investment in the property purchased. 41. On appeal, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition, therefore Revenue is in appeal before us and assessee is in cross objection before us, vide CO.No.11/SRT/2023 42. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that in the transaction of property, the assessee’s share is at Rs.3,84,61,500/- [7,69,23000/2]. Apart from the above it was observed by the assessing officer that payment of Rs.4,21,24,562/-, has been paid by assessee and Shri Page | 30 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan Vinod Goswami and being an equal shareholder i.e. 35% each, the payment of Rs.2,10,62,281/- has been made by each. The said transaction has made in cash. Therefore, the amount of Rs.2,10,62,281/- should be treated as unaccounted income in the hands of assesses for the year under consideration. Therefore, ld DR prays the Bench that addition made by the assessing officer may be upheld. 43. On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee, pleaded that addition has been made on the basis of two rough loose papers stated to be seized from one Shri Jayantibhai Bhulabhai Patel (JBP), by presumptively relating the same with the assessee. These loose papers are pasted on Page No. '3'(Para '6') of the unsigned assessment order served on 16/10/2021. From the very face of these loose papers, it is clear that the same are mere rough papers containing some rough jottings/ calculations without any details, descriptions and meaningful narrations. These are clearly dumb documents. In these dump documents, there is no mention of any property, transaction or purpose to which these rough jottings/ calculations relate. There is no mention of any date(s) or period. There are no details of the parties to or from whom the alleged payments are made/received. At one place the word 'Khetanji' is mentioned in Gujarati Language and at other place 'R.K.' is mentioned, thousands of persons with the surname "Khetan' & there are tens of thousands of abbreviated name as "R.K.' in the city. As per settled law such rough loose papers and dumb documents have no evidentiary value and no addition can be made on the basis of same. The ld Counsel also relied on following case laws: (i) COMMON CAUSE vs. UNION OF INDIA - (2017) 77taxmann.com 245 (SC) Page | 31 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan (ii) NISHANT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT ITA NO. 1502/AHD/2015. The ld Counsel also contended that assessing officer has not identified any such property or transaction for which alleged presumptive payments might have been made. Hence, ld Counsel prays the Bench that order passed by the ld CIT(A) is a detailed and speaking order, therefore the same may be upheld. 44. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The ld CIT(A) observed that assessing officer has not been able to identify the property which has been purchased. The contention of the assessee before the assessing officer as well as during the Appellate Proceedings was that the assessee never purchased any immovable property jointly with Mr. Sunny J. Patel and Mr. Vinod Goswami. The unexplained investment in any immovable property can be brought to tax only when the immovable property has been identified to have been purchased. Without identifying the property if the addition is made it is only on the basis of presumption that the assessee has purchased the immovable property. During the appellate proceedings, it was pleaded by the assessee, that the incriminating material relied upon by the assessing officer was not found in the premises of the assessee but was found in the premises of third party and therefore, the addition made in the order u/s 153A of the Act was beyond the scope of the said section. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vallamji R. Patel TA No. 1813 of 2006 and of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Prarthana Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT 70 TTJ 122 (Ahmedabad). Page | 32 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan In both the above judgments, it has been held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of rough papers or diaries etc. found / seized from third parties without corroborative evidence. Further, it was pleaded that the incriminating material contains the name “Khetan ji” or “R.K.” which cannot be the basis for treating the jottings relating to the assessee especially when there is no property alleged to be purchased jointly was identified by the assessing officer and hence, it was submitted that the incriminating material found in the form of loose sheets should be treated as dumb document and merely resemblance of the name or the initial cannot be the basis for making the addition in the hands of the assessee. 45. We note that Assessing Office did not make any inquiry from buyers of flat in respect of actual prices paid by them. He also did not make any other inquiry in order to corroborate his conclusion. There is no incriminating evidence to show that the assessee has sold the flats at a higher rate. we note that the impounded loose sheet can at the most be termed as “dumb document” which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not relied upon and made the basis of addition. Therefore, we observe that ld CIT(A) has rightly held that the jottings on the loose papers found have not been corroborated with any other evidence or the property purchased or invested by the assessee. Therefore, the jottings made without identification of any asset or investment cannot be the basis for making the addition of unexplained investment as done by the assessing officer. Therefore, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.2,10,62,281/-. We have gone through the above findings of ld CIT(A) and noted that there is no infirmity in the Page | 33 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan conclusion reached by ld CIT(A).That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 46. In the result, Ground No.1 to 4 of Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 66/SRT/2023, for A.Y. 2019-2020, are dismissed. 47. Coming to ground No.5 raised by the Revenue, this is reproduced below for ready reference: “Ground No.5: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.60,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained gift. (Similar ground no.5 in AY.2020-21 in IT(ss) A No.67/SRT/2023, raised by the Revenue)”. 48. The above ground relates to addition of Rs.60,30,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained gifts received as accommodation entries. Brief facts qua the issue are that as per the assessing officer, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in Shree Kuberji Group and the business and residential premises of the assessee. During the course of search, various incriminating documents were found and seized. During the course of search at the office premises of M/s Nilkanth Silk Mills, loose paper file was found, seized and inventoried as Annexure-A-1 containing copies of gift deeds either donated by the assessee or received by him. During the assessment proceedings, according to the assessing officer, the assessee could not substantiate the sources of funds in the hands of giver of gift, relation with the donor and donee and did not prove conclusively that the donor had sufficient funds being reflected in their books of accounts. Hence the assessing officer has made the Page | 34 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan addition amounting to Rs.60,30,000/- on account of unexplained gifts received from the family members as accommodation entries. 49. On appeal, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition, therefore Revenue is in appeal before us. Learned DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). We have heard both the parties. We note that ld CIT(A) observed that it is a fact that the gift deeds from the assessee's brother Mr. Basudev Khetan were found during the course of survey in the office premises of M/s Nilkant Silks, a Prop, concern of the assessee's son. These gifts were received by the assessee through banking channel. Before the assessing officer, the assessee submitted the Capital account, Balance sheet, Income Tax Return (ITR) and bank statement of the donor. The ld CIT(A) observed that these details were sufficient to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the donor. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the assessing officer had issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the donor during the assessment proceedings and the donor had confirmed that he had given gifts to the assessee. However, the assessing officer held that the gifts were the accommodation entries without any basis or any investigation to that effect. The assessing officer has not been able to prove that the cash was deposited before the gifts were given in the bank donor to form a reasonable belief that the gifts were accommodation entries. During the appellate proceedings the bank account statement of the donor was produced as part of the submission and it was found that in the said Page | 35 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan case no any cash was deposited in the bank account of the donor and on the contrary donor had the receipts out of his own sources/businesses. Therefore, the view of the assessing officer that the gifts received by the assessee from his brother were accommodation entry has not been proved. As the donor has given all the required details of his creditworthiness and capacity to give gifts to the assessee and as he has confirmed the gifts u/s 133(6) of the Act before the assessing officer, the gift received cannot be held to be accommodation entry. Accordingly, the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.60,30,000/- was deleted by ld CIT(A).The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A) and we dismiss ground No.5 raised by the Revenue in IT(SS)A No. 66/SRT/2023, for A.Y. 2019-2020. 50. In the result, ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in IT(SS)A No. 66/SRT/2023, for A.Y. 2019-2020, is dismissed. 51. We note that identical ground no.5 in AY.2020-21 in IT(SS) A No.67/SRT/2023, raised by the Revenue, is also dismissed with similar observation. 52. In the result, ground no.5 in AY.2020-21 in IT(SS) A No.67/SRT/2023, raised by the Revenue, is dismissed. 53. Coming to the assessee`s Cross Objection No. 11/SRT/2023, for assessment year 2019-20, therein the assessee has raised the technical issue stating that ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the unsigned assessment order passed by Assessing Officer, which Page | 36 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan was served on the assessee on 16.10.2021 by changing the figure of assessed income at Rs.3,07,81,040/-, as originally assessed income of Rs.36,88,360/-, as per computation sheet and demand notice uploaded on 30.09.2021, therefore, assessment order is invalid and time barred, hence, such order may be quashed. Since we have upheld the order of ld CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, this technical ground raised by the assessee is rendered academic and infructuous, hence does not require adjudication. 54. In the result, Assessee`s Cross Objection No. 11/SRT/2023, for assessment year 2019-20, is dismissed, being infructuous. 55. Now, we shall take Revenue’s appeal for AY.2020-21 in IT(ss)A No.67/SRT/2023 and Assessee’s cross objection No.12/SRT/2023 for AY.2020-21, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in its Cross Objections are summarized, which are reproduced below: (1) IT(SS)A No.67/SRT/2023 (Revenue Appeal) for AY.2020-21: (i).Ground No. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue relates to deleting addition of Rs.3,15,15,350/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in land at Umarwada. In these grounds, the grievance of the Revenue is that ld. CIT(A) ignored the incriminating details and documents, two new partners were entered with 2.5% each profit sharing ratio and the contribution of assessee other than banking channel was worked out at Rs.3,15,15,350/-. Since, the assessee failed to explain the contents of the seized paper, hence provisions of section 132(4A) and 292C of the Act are applicable to the assessee. (ii).Ground No.5 relates to deleting addition of Rs.60,30,000/-, made by the assessing officer towards unexplained gift. (2)Assessee’s CO No.12/SRT/2023 for AY.2020-21: (i) The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143 r.w.s. 153A of the Act.” Page | 37 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan 56. We shall take Ground No. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue, IT(SS)A No.67/SRT/2023 (Revenue Appeal) for AY.2020-21. The detailed facts relating to Rajendraprasad Babulal khetan-group, have already been narrated by us in this order, in above para, therefore, we do not reiterate the same. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are against the addition of Rs.3,15,15,350/- made by the assessing officer in the name of presumptive unaccounted investment (on- money) alleged to be paid to a partnership firm M/s Shri Kuberji Enterprise to introduce Shri Nitesh Khetan (son of assessee) as partner into the said firm. The ld Counsel argued that though neither the assessee nor his son nor any other family member ever became the partner into the said firm and there has been no basis, material or finding of any such alleged payment of unaccounted investment (on money) to the said firm M/s Shree Kuberji Enterprises or any of its partner(s). The fact that the assessee or any of his family members, have never been partner, into the said firm, must be evident from the data base of this firm on the records of I.T. Department itself. The Ld Counsel further stated that first basis mentioned by assessing officer is the draft 'partnership amendment agreement' of M/s Shri Kuberji Enterprise stated to be seized from the residence of Shri Naresh B. Agarwal as Page Nos. 31 to 42 of Annexure A-1 and pasted on page nos. 3 to 9 of assessment order. From this document following facts are evident viz: (i) M/s. Shri Kuberji Enterprise is a partnership firm formed on 29/01/2014 and registered with the Registrar of Firms (ROF) with regn. No. GUJ/SRT/(17) 38917 dated 05/02/2014. As per information with assessee, this firm is assessed with the same assessing officer, (ii)Assessee or his son (Nitesh Khetan) or any other family member was not a partner into the said firm and have never Page | 38 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan become partner into same, (iii)Parties at Sl. no. '1' to '5' of the draft agreement were partners of the said firm as on the date of this draft agreement i.e. 01/02/2020. By this draft amendment agreement, Shri Nitesh R. Khetan (son of assessee) and Shri Vinod M. Goswami were proposed to be taken as new partners into the said firm w.e.f, 28/01/2020. However, assessee and his son were not prepared to join this firm and, therefore, this draft agreement was not signed by the assessee or his son, Nitesh Khetan. It was just a proposal on the part of partners of said firm, which was never executed by the assessee or his son. Hence, this is just a proposal document which was never executed and materialized. The ld Counsel also argued that as informed to assessee by Shri Vinod Goswami, even the persons who signed this draft agreement also subsequently cancelled it and a cancellation agreement was also signed by them. It is also informed that such cancellation agreement was also seized from the residence of Shri Naresh B. Agarwal. It is not fair on the part of A.O. not to consider and mention about such cancellation agreement. Thus, this was a non-executed, not-materialized and not acted upon document having no evidentiary value. Based on these facts ld Counsel contended that ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the assessing officer, therefore order of ld CIT(A) may be upheld. 57. On the other hand, ld DR for the Revenue, pleaded that the said image/paper are found at the residence of assessee during the search proceedings which proves beyond doubt that the assessee had major role in the said land transaction. Hence, the authentication of the said paper cannot be denied. From the details available with AO it is ascertain that the assessee had made huge investment in land in Surat Page | 39 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan and is partner in many firms related to Kuberji Group. Further, it is common practice in real estate market in Surat that the land has been sold out and out to the name of some other known person and on- money deal/transactions have been made by land/property dealer. Further, the digital data seized by the search team is as per the Evidence Act, 1872 and I.T. Act, 1961 and as per section 292C of the I.T. Act, there is presumption with regard to content of the seized material. Further, as per the law prevailing, it is duty of the assessee to explain the transactions in respect of papers /material found from his possession. If he fails to explain the transactions appearing in papers/material found from his possession, then such transactions deemed to have been carried by him and revenue is free to hold that the transactions appearing in the diary/papers are nothing but the unaccounted transactions of the Subject. Therefore, based on these facts, ld DR contended that addition made by the assessing officer may be upheld. 58. We heard both sides in detail and also perused the records of the case including the paper book filed by the assessee. The ld CIT(A) observed that the land was owned by the firm M/s Shree Kuberji Enterprises. The basis of addition of the assessing officer is the partnership amendment agreement dated 01. 02.2020, wherein the son of the assessee, Shri Nitesh R Khetan and Shri Vinod Goswami were to be admitted, as new partners in firm M/s Shree Kuberji Enterprises. The evidence for the same was two loose papers (page no. 8 and 11 of annexure A-l) found from the residence of Shri Vinod Goswami containing the details of the offer so received. On perusal of the partnership amendment agreement, as pasted on page no. 3 to 9 of the Page | 40 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan assessment order, it is evident that the same is not signed by one of the existing partners, namely Shri Natwarbhai M. Harlalka and by the incoming partner Shri Nitesh R. Khetan. This shows that the said agreement was not signed by all the parties and did not become final. It is submitted by the assessee that as he or his son Mr. Nitesh Khetan never signed the said agreement, the contents of the same are not applicable to either the assessee or his son. During assessment proceeding, assessee also requested the assessing officer to verify the fact of his son's not joining the said firm from the ITBA and PAN data base of the said firm, latest return filed by the said firm, registrar of firms as also from the said firm and its partners. It was submitted during the appellate proceedings that there is no mention of any adverse finding by the assessing officer in this regard. Thus, nothing has been brought on record by the assessing officer to prove that the assessee or his son had in fact joined the said firm and became its partner. This being the fact of the case that the partnership firm was never reconstituted as envisaged in the copy of the partnership amendment agreement found, the working of the two loose papers referred by the assessing officer without corroboration with the actual facts cannot be fully relied upon for making an addition. Undisputedly, these loose papers contained the details of the offer received by the assessee/his son to become partner into the said firm. When the offer itself was ultimately not materialized, then the addition on the basis of these loose papers containing the details of the offer cannot be sustained. 59. Therefore, ld CIT(A) observed that there is no material with the assessing officer relating to unaccounted investment/ contribution by Page | 41 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan the assessee for becoming partner of the said firm. The document relied upon being the partnership amendment agreement dated 01.02.2020 was not executed and cannot be the basis for making the addition. As the revised constitution of the firm was never given effect to, the loose papers No. 8 and 11 of annexure A-1, cannot be held to be having necessary evidentiary value for making addition as done by the assessing officer. There is no mention of finding of any material showing that such unaccounted contribution / Investment was in fact made by the assessee or his son. 60. The ld CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India, 77 Taxmann.com 245 and on the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Nishant Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT - ITA No. 1502/Ahd/2015 holding that the loose papers by themselves have no evidentiary value and addition cannot be made merely on the basis of jottings on the loose papers in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. The said case of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad bench has been upheld by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case reported at (2019) 101 Taxmann.com 180 (Gujarat). Relying on the above judicial pronouncement, it was observed that jottings on loose sheets of papers found as page no. 8 and 11 of Annexure A-l containing the details of offer received have no evidentiary value, more so when it is a fact that the said offer was not ultimately accepted and materialized as the assessee or his son did not become partner of the said firm. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chintan Jadavbhai J. Patel vs. ITO 404 ITR 76 wherein it was held that the unsigned and unexecuted document does not have Page | 42 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan any evidentiary value and no action can be taken on the basis of such unsigned document. In view of the law laid down in above case laws, the addition made just on the basis of two loose sheets of papers containing the details of offer received but cannot be sustained in the absence of any other corroborative. In view of above facts, ld CIT(A) held that addition made towards the unaccounted/ unexplained investment/ contribution for becoming partner into the said Firm M/s. Shree Kuberji Enterprise and its land cannot be sustained. The incriminating material relied upon by the assessing officer do not suggest any contribution/ investment actually made by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.3,15,15,350/- was deleted by ld CIT(A). We have gone through the above findings of ld CIT(A) and noted that conclusion reached by ld CIT(A) is correct. That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 61. In the result, Ground No. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue, in IT(SS)A No.67/SRT/2023, for AY.2020-21, are dismissed. 62. Ground No.5 relates to deleting addition of Rs.60,30,000/-, made by the assessing officer towards unexplained gift. We have already adjudicated this ground in para no.47 of this order, therefore we dismiss ground no.5 in AY.2020-21 in IT(SS) A No.67/SRT/2023, raised by the Revenue. 63. In the result, Ground no.5 in AY.2020-21 in IT(SS)A No. 67/SRT/2023, raised by the Revenue, is dismissed. Page | 43 ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan 64. In the combined result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, whereas assessee’s appeal are partly allowed and cross objections filed by the assessee are also partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Registry is directed to place one copy of this order in all appeals folder / case file(s). Order is pronounced on 11/08/2023 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 11/08/2023 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat